So? Change is change. That is all that matters.
As for new life no it isn't. We can create genetic material from scratch and put it in a cell wall and watch it live.
And for your second point, we can do it because we are have an intelligible mind. Which also suggest an intelligible mind must be at the origin of the DNA code base.
You seem to think one implies he other, yet you give no reason for why. What makes you think intelligence is needed to create DNA? Laws of entropy create DNA naturally.
It's the exact oposite. Laws of entropy degrade DNA in an observable manner.
Actually life might be inevitable as it helps the process of using energy and maximising entropy.
“In 1964, James Lovelock was among a group of scientists who were requested by NASA to make a theoretical life detection system to look for life on Mars … “What is life, and how
Since then they have recognised that the presence of life increases the rate of entropy gain in the surrounding system. Just using electricity is an easy example.
you mean like us generating electricity / using more energy?
Yes. Really the only way to lower entropy of a system is to increase universal entropy. Refrigeration is a good example. Lower entropy in the fridge increases it in the home.
The second law doesn't claim that the entropy of any part of a system increases: if it did, ice would never form and vapor would never condense, since both of those processes involve a
you've assumed DNA cannot be created naturally. analogous to saying intelligent people made matches to make fire therefore without intelligent people there cannot be fire.
It's not about assuming anything. I will simply not claim something as a fact which I can't prove.
You’re right it suggests (or even proves) that intelligently designing DNA is one option for how it was first created but does not say that intelligences MUST be the origin of DNA.
Yes, that's why I first said "suggest". My second wording has been chosen for the only sake of being provocative. My bad.
Intelligent design is easily disproven by coming up with much smarter designs. Unless this creator is an idiot.
interesting thought. like runners with prosthetic calves & feet can outrun able bodied runners.
Even if we consider that most of the universe is empty space. If one is all powerful you could make a more efficient universe. One infinite plane would be better.
why do you say an infinite plane would be better?
More usable space. Better suited to life. At least better than mostly empty and unlivable space. This is assuming a godly creator who can do create the universe as anything.
yeah, of course. would be really easy to just go off & do your own thing / get away from everyone else.
Essentially if there was a godly creator they would be a Flat Earther if they were smarter. In the real world though Fat Earthers are wrong, and the globe disproves intelligent design.
Might also be limits? Consider making our world like designing a video game. Could literally anything be designed or would there be some universal limits?
I guess if we imply a limited creator. Depends on if they make the laws of physics, or if they are constrained by them.
yeah, guess that's what I was getting at. like if you say you can build an infinite plane then how do you change gravity to allow that? you know?
lol interesting thought! there could be benefits to designing a round earth. eg letting organisms evolve/advance in more relative isolation.
Those benefits work in a universe that is hands off. A creator should have been able to come up with a better system than one that lead to most species becoming extinct.
I agree there are optimizations to be made, but every optimization could break something else. (eg allow FTL, now have to deal with time travel or something)
Only on solid level surfaces.
true, was thinking just in sporting events
This does not follow>“Which also suggest an intelligible mind MUST be at the origin of the DNA code base”
You assume that DNA is useful without a cell and that it's durable in an aerobic environment. Analogous to saying that if there's a library full of books a reader will magically appear
What?? So this thing is going to build a cell around itself? All the plans in the world mean nothing if you don't have a factory to produce them in the first place.
You asked for proof of heritable code that is “useful without a cell and that it's durable in an aerobic environment”. Thats what this is.
For evolution you need something that can self replicate, mutate, & be under selection pressure. Self-Replicating RNA Enzymes suit those criteria.
Just look at the long string of processes the chemists had to go through to make that RNA in the lab. Even then its just white noise and gets destroyed in the presence of oxygen.
We’re also looking through the lens of survivorship bias. We dont know all the organisms that didn’t work out. It is possible there are even more simple self replicating molecules.
& yes everything gets degraded over time. The question is what is the balance between self replicating & degrading? People degrade but not before self replicating.
wonderful animations. *yes people degrade constantly but not to the point they cannot self replicate (an assumption buried in previous mRNA enzyme posts)
You don't get replication without that splitting machine, so that's something that has to jump out of your alphabet soup fully functional.
true you dont get replication… in this organism. The RNA enzyme above can self replicate, & mutate. Minimum needed to evolve any function.
Other groups work on how nucleotides & amino acids could be made in early earth conditions. side note: this was done in water in an open container at 42C so there was oxygen.
That right there is almost the epitome of bad logical deduction.
That right there is not an argument.
was the argument how to jump wildly to conclusions not backed up by evidence?
